Op-Ed: According to mainstream media sources Friday Jeremy Corbyn faces resignation from his Cabinet following events Thursday on the prospect of the U.K. joining allied forces bombing Syria.

Thursday U.K. P.M. David Cameron addressed a packed House of Commons; he set out his case for Britain joining the bombing campaign in Syria and the debate that followed was longer than expected.

The opposition met and went their separate ways to consider whether the case for bombing had been made; they were given till the middle of next week to mull it over and join together on "common ground".

But Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn already knew he was not persuaded, writing and sending a letter to his MPs explaining why he would not be voting in favour of airstrikes.

A Labour MP has now told the media that Mr. Corbyn could face resignations from senior posts.

But while the mainstream media concentrate on Labour and whether it is in meltdown it is worth noting one or two facts.

David Cameron does hold a majority in the House of Commons, albeit a slender majority. If the Conservative party voted as one the vote would be won. In other words Cameron has failed to convince some of his own MPs that his 'plan' for Syria is real and will work.

The SNP hold a swathe of seats in the House of Commons, the Liberal Democrats have a handful of seats and UKIP, the Green Party, plus political parties from Northern Ireland and Wales all have some representation.

Labour occupy the biggest number of opposition seats making them the official opposition but if there is a free vote on airstrikes in Syria they are just one cog of the wheel.

In votes on military strikes politicians are often given a free vote enabling them to follow their conscience. The main political parties on both sides of the House could apply the 'whip' meaning MPs will have to vote according to the party line.

While some leading lights in Labour are said to be furious that Corbyn wrote to his MPs so swiftly Thursday at least one politician in that party is feeding the media.

Who is the real traitor to Labour?

Jeremy Corbyn is known for his anti-war stance but this writer has no doubt that he would step up to the mark if the U.K. was under direct threat or military action would achieve a good outcome.

Who can blame him for questioning the number of 70,000 Free Syrian Army personnel that Cameron claims are on the ground in Syria, and working together; people Cameron claims will work on the ground as allied forces bomb the country into near oblivion.

Syria is a complex civil war made worse by numerous terror groups operating in and around Syria. Some of those we want to support are called 'moderate rebels' but that is debatable.

When is a rebel a rebel, when is a rebel a terrorists and when is a terrorist a rebel remains an unanswered question with one possible reply when The USA says so.

Yes we must oust the death cult Daesh but will the UK joining military strikes make a difference to the pit come?

It will show a unified western presence, it will put us all in the mix for any post-war pickings; it will make us all responsible for rebuilding post-war but as we all know there is money to be made out of conflict.

Mr Corbyn has been leader of the Labour Party since September 12 and has consistently made headlines for the wrong reasons. That has not been down to him but rather a series of stories, including one calling him Jihadi Jez, aimed at undermining his leadership.

Labour is an aside in this story but sadly our media are making it the main issue.

Mr Corbyn's letter to Labour MPs follows:

Dear Colleague,

The Prime Minister made a Statement to the House today making the case for a UK bombing campaign against ISIS in Syria. A copy of my response has already been circulated.We have all been horrified by the despicable attacks in Paris and are determined to see the defeat of ISIS.

Our first priority must be the security of Britain and the safety of the British people. The issue now is whether what the Prime Minister is proposing strengthens, or undermines, our national security.

I do not believe that the Prime Minister today made a convincing case that extending UK bombing to Syria would meet that crucial test. Nor did it satisfactorily answer the questions raised by us and the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

In particular, the Prime Minister did not set out a coherent strategy, coordinated through the United Nations, for the defeat of ISIS. Nor has he been able to explain what credible and acceptable ground forces could retake and hold territory freed from ISIS control by an intensified air campaign.

In my view, the Prime Minister has been unable to explain the contribution of additional UK bombing to a comprehensive negotiated political settlement of the Syrian civil war, or its likely impact on the threat of terrorist attacks in the UK.

For these and other reasons, I do not believe the Prime Minister’s current proposal for air strikes in Syria will protect our security and therefore cannot support it.

The Shadow Cabinet met today for an initial discussion and debated the issues extensively. We will meet again on Monday, when we will attempt to reach a common view.

I will get in touch again when we know the timing of the debate and vote.

YoursJeremy Corbyn,Leader of the Labour Party

David Cameron has said he will hold a vote in the Commons next week but only if he is sure of a win. Anything less will, he claims, send out the wrong signal to others abroad.

Op-Ed: Having taken time to ponder news Monday that an RAF drone strike in Syria killed two British citizens this writer feels unable to applaud the news.

Two-years ago the Prime Minister of the UK's coalition government suffered a Common's defeat; airstrikes against and in Syria were ruled out although Cameron admitted he could use special veto powers if necessary.

Parliament did not approve air strikes and neither did the majority of the UK population; many people had contacted their MPs to ask they voted against air strikes.

This time around Cameron has made sure the 'deed is done' before coming clean to British parliament and the country.

Cameron cited 'self-defence' for taking out two British citizens in Syria but refused to give any specifics.

What we do know is that the men, Cardiff-born Reyaad Khan, 21, and Ruhul Amin, from Aberdeen, reportedly planned attacks against and in the UK; plans for those attacks were uncovered by a Sky News undercover investigation.

Toward the end of their report on August 11 the Sky News investigator says "It's impossible to know if any of this is true, of course. But we suspect much of it is."

Does that sound a good enough reason to kill two British men in a country, Syria, which the UK is not at war with?

It comes after ex-top brass last night urged the PM to set a date for action. War is a dirty business but there are rules of engagement. The Geneva Convention and Human Rights Acts around the world offer guidance and some protection; should we discard these rules so easily when it suits?

If we do we set dangerous precedents that can easily back fire.

Part of the problem is the alleged attacks planned against the UK were all scheduled for events that happened on or before the two men were killed-non took place.

Legal eagles in the UK have already said that our laws do not allow for retrospective action against possible attacks.

So many times when Cameron cannot act at will he tries to change or reform legislation. This time however it will not be easy. BBC News reports;

The "act of self defence" was lawful, despite MPs previously ruling out UK military action in Syria, the PM said.Khan was killed in a precision strike on 21 August by a remotely piloted aircraft, "after meticulous planning", while he was travelling in a vehicle.Another British national, Junaid Hussain, 21 and from Birmingham, was killed in a separate air strike by US forces in Raqqa on 24 August.

Did others die in the 'precision airstrike'? Were any civilians caught up in the madness?

According to Forces online no civilians were killed and both men died in the same vehicle.

"The Prime Minister insisted that the strike was "entirely lawful" and was approved by Attorney General Jeremy Wright."

Attorney general Dominic Grieve was replaced by Jeremy Wright QC July 15, 2014. Wright has said the killing of Khan and Amin broke no rules but many people describe him as inexperienced and a 'yes' man.

One man that does have the necessary experience is Lord Dannatt who google describes as "a retired British Army officer and the incumbent Constable of the Tower of London. He was commissioned into the Green Howards in 1971, and his first tour of duty was in Belfast as a platoon commander."

Dannatt has previously worked for or with David Cameron as a defence adviser but he quit that role in 2010 when Cameron became UK PM.

And Lord Dannatt's conclusion is the "Strike On British IS Fighters "May Well Not Be Right"."

"I'm accepting that the British parliament has not authorised action from the air over Syria at the present time.

"For all I know British drones have been operating in the airspace but gathering intelligence - delivering explosive ordnance and attacking issues is another matter.

"And by the letter of what parliament has authorised, that may well not be right."

When it was suggested that drone operators had targeted and taken out British individuals in Syria without the endorsement of the Commons, he said: "Put it like that, then that is wrong."

"Another British national, Junaid Hussain, 21 and from Birmingham, was killed in a separate air strike by US forces in Raqqa on August 24."

Note: Rupert Murdoch is the man behind Sky News and The Sun publication-"THE Sun today lays out the military options open to David Cameron for air strikes on Syria to ease the migrant crisis, was Sunday's headline. What a way to sell newspapers and war!

Op-Ed: In a rare move UK PM David Cameron has invited the acting leader of the Labour Party Harriet Harman to join a high-level security meeting Tuesday about the threat posed by Islamic State (IS) extremists.

The National Security Council meet will include senior ministers, military chiefs and intelligence agency heads.

The UK government wants to extend its coalition support in the fight against Islamic State. That will involve extending the RAF's air campaign to include strikes against IS targets in Syria.

The recent terror attacks on three continents and the latest UK ban on travel to Tunisia are all part of a complicated puzzle.

For most people Islamic State was a new phenomenon in 2013 but it appears we have all been misled once again.

When foreign agents infiltrated Middle Eastern countries to 'support' uprisings they opened a Pandora’s box. In Syria rebels actively promoted and supported by the west in their quest to oust President Assad broken into groups and turned on each other.

In Libya the murder of Gaddafi and removal of his regime has not brought widespread peace. Instead it has resulted in open borders allowing terrorists to travel freely and spread their venom elsewhere.

Will bombing 'targets' in Syria help resolve the situation? Is it a step in the right direction or regressive?

If we look back even further the USA had a poor track record in Afghanistan. It was so keen to strike ate Russia, the Soviet Union of the day, that it actively supported the Mujahedeen in that country; a band of rebels that morphed into the Taliban.

Having fought two long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq what has been achieved in real terms except for removing leaders and regimes we once supported?

Attacks against IS targets in Iraq are one thing; that country agreed to that move.

But if we simply begin a bombing campaign in Syria without approval from the country's leader President Assad we lose all credibility.

The west tends to twist and turn the rules to suit claiming special circumstances but we set dangerous precedents.

It is obvious Ms Harman is being invited to Tuesday's meeting ahead of a potential vote on air strikes in Syria or a government decision to do just that.

In 2013 UK PM David Cameron lost a crucial vote on air strikes in Syria. 30 Tory rebels voted with Labour whilst another 31 Conservatives failed to vote. At the eleventh hour Labour leader Ed Miliband pulled the plug on strikes against Syria and it was a popular decision.

Support NEWTEK - Like what we do here at NEWTEK? If so, you should consider supporting us…Running a news based website is fun, time consuming and can be costly. If you would like to help the site keep afloat please use the donate button​